There is a defect in the regulation system. New unproven treatments are not covered until they are accepted. This typically only requires small safety studies and not effectiveness studies. This is to ensure patient safety. Old treatments are grandfathered in after their use has become common medical practice. Unfortunately, sometimes these treatments have not been rigorously studied and they are not effective or safe. The case of stents is illustrative. Stents came into common use after a few small studies seemed to show they were effective. Later better studies showed that they were not effective or safe. However, once they were in common use, it has been difficult to ban their use. A stronger regulatory environment would require both initial small safety and effectiveness studies to gain initial approval for use and larger, longer term studies to prove safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
It is unrestrained free enterprise. We need to add government regulations to certify which treatments are effective and will be reimbursed. We need to restrain free enterprise and that is government's job. As far as your comment on insurance goes, it's a bit difficult to follow. We do have free enterprise insurance markets where you are not forced to buy insurance from any particular provider. Any insurance company can sell you insurance. You have a good point about comparison shopping. It would be a better market if you could shop for medical services, drugs, etc. and compare prices. Unfortunately, the medical industry has done an excellent job of obfuscating prices. It's extremely difficult to find out how much medical service or drug will cost. Just try to call up a doctor's office and ask them the price for anything. They will obfuscate. The solution here is for the government to require all medical providers to post prices so you can compare. Also, the government should rate the effectiveness of treatments and these should be posted also. Your point about requiring licensing of doctors, hospitals, etc. comes up frequently. Unfortunately, there are many people who would like to pose as medical providers to take your money without having proper training. You cannot have just any random person claiming to be a medical doctor. People will be harmed. This would be another failure of the "free market".
New (unproven) treatments are a different issue. There are good arguments for and against these. The issue highlighted here is that doctors are continuing to do procedures where there is no evidence of benefit (and, in many cases, evidence of harm). They do this, not because they are ignorant, but because they are greedy.
As you point out, prevention is better than treatment. The problem is that people do get heart disease (diet, exercise, etc.), have chest pain and then go to the doctor who has a strong financial incentive to put in stents. He ignores the research we now have that stents don't work because his pocketbook depends on it.
Unfortunately, we have an unrestrained free enterprise system for medicine in the US. Doctors have rigged the payment system (CPT codes) so that specialist procedures are reimbursed many times their worth in time and training. The result is that most doctors train to become specialists and focus on doing highly remunerated procedures such as those enumerated in this report. There is no effective regulation of these procedures and so as long as you're not killing a large number of patients, anything goes. It means big bucks for the doctors and hospitals (insurance companies pay but then just tack on their % O&P so they don't really care either). Of course, people pay more for inflated cost of medical care and insurance and taxes to subsidize the whole system. The result is that we pay about twice per capita what other developed countries pay for health care but end up with poor quality care (lower health indicators than most other developed countries). Totally corrupt system.
Yes, you are correct that skin effect is present at all frequencies and increases at higher frequencies. This power plant uses DC transmission so it's kind of irrelevant.
Nuclear power seems to have a negative learning curve. Each new nuclear plant seems to cost more than prior plants. This has been observed over decades. Wind and solar, OTOH, have been observed to get cheaper over time with dramatically lower costs each year.
A few things you could have answered by RTFA: - They plan multiple cables to the surrounding countries: Norway, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, UK - The cables will be be DC which is more efficient - They have real engineers who know how to design stuff (unlike the/. "engineers"). They have been building offshore wind turbines for many years.
I believe that the USPS is charging Amazon a "market determined rate" which is competitive with UPS and FedEx. Where I live, most Amazon packages are delivered by UPS since I presume it is cheaper. Sometimes it will be FedEx or USPS or some independent guy in a beat up old truck. I assume Amazon has sophisticated shipping cost software which chooses the best rate. If the USPS charged more, Amazon would just switch to UPS, etc. This is the free market in all of it's raw glory.
I've found that hotels are reluctant to match the prices of the OTAs. Multiple times I have arrived at a hotel and showed them the OTA price and asked them to match it. This should be a no brainer since they don't have to pay commission but for some reason, they don't want to do it. I end up just booking on the OTA site to get the best price.
One project I've been watching (late as usual) is the Superbook (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andromium/the-superbook-turn-your-smartphone-into-a-laptop-f) It looks like a small laptop with a screen and keyboard but it has no brains. It uses your smartphone as the brains and more importantly, storage for all you stuff. It has a battery to charge your phone and run the Superbook.
Actually, my daughter was just telling about eating stone crabs in Florida. Apparently, the only harvest one claw of the crab, throw it back and it grows a new one. (Rinse, repeat)
News flash. Animals don't make proteins. All protein comes from plants. Animals are just a very inefficient mechanism of converting plant protein to unhealthy animal protein. Better to eat lower on the food chain. Fewer toxins, no saturated fat, Better for the planet.
No need to resort to misogynistic statements. This is "usual" corporate fraud and deception abetted by a "good old boys" network of clueless investors who weren't smart enough (or trusted their "bros" too much) to ask basic questions.
The fact that the CEO was female was part of their hype. They did this. The fact that they failed was because they had a fundamentally flawed product that they were never able to fix and they engaged in widespread fraud and deception to avoid facing up to their problems. This has no relation to the sex of their CEO. It's common in industry.
There is a fundamental problem with their basic technology in that finger tip blood is not the same as venous blood in many different ways and you can't compensate for that.
Ah HA! So that's why the lamestream fake news media reported such small numbers of people at the Trump Inauguration! There were really millions more but the Romanians erased them from the cameras.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a defect in the regulation system.
New unproven treatments are not covered until they are accepted. This typically only requires small safety studies and not effectiveness studies. This is to ensure patient safety.
Old treatments are grandfathered in after their use has become common medical practice. Unfortunately, sometimes these treatments have not been rigorously studied and they are not effective or safe. The case of stents is illustrative. Stents came into common use after a few small studies seemed to show they were effective. Later better studies showed that they were not effective or safe. However, once they were in common use, it has been difficult to ban their use. A stronger regulatory environment would require both initial small safety and effectiveness studies to gain initial approval for use and larger, longer term studies to prove safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
It is unrestrained free enterprise. We need to add government regulations to certify which treatments are effective and will be reimbursed. We need to restrain free enterprise and that is government's job.
As far as your comment on insurance goes, it's a bit difficult to follow. We do have free enterprise insurance markets where you are not forced to buy insurance from any particular provider. Any insurance company can sell you insurance.
You have a good point about comparison shopping. It would be a better market if you could shop for medical services, drugs, etc. and compare prices. Unfortunately, the medical industry has done an excellent job of obfuscating prices. It's extremely difficult to find out how much medical service or drug will cost. Just try to call up a doctor's office and ask them the price for anything. They will obfuscate. The solution here is for the government to require all medical providers to post prices so you can compare. Also, the government should rate the effectiveness of treatments and these should be posted also.
Your point about requiring licensing of doctors, hospitals, etc. comes up frequently. Unfortunately, there are many people who would like to pose as medical providers to take your money without having proper training. You cannot have just any random person claiming to be a medical doctor. People will be harmed. This would be another failure of the "free market".
New (unproven) treatments are a different issue. There are good arguments for and against these.
The issue highlighted here is that doctors are continuing to do procedures where there is no evidence of benefit (and, in many cases, evidence of harm). They do this, not because they are ignorant, but because they are greedy.
As you point out, prevention is better than treatment.
The problem is that people do get heart disease (diet, exercise, etc.), have chest pain and then go to the doctor who has a strong financial incentive to put in stents. He ignores the research we now have that stents don't work because his pocketbook depends on it.
Unfortunately, we have an unrestrained free enterprise system for medicine in the US. Doctors have rigged the payment system (CPT codes) so that specialist procedures are reimbursed many times their worth in time and training. The result is that most doctors train to become specialists and focus on doing highly remunerated procedures such as those enumerated in this report. There is no effective regulation of these procedures and so as long as you're not killing a large number of patients, anything goes. It means big bucks for the doctors and hospitals (insurance companies pay but then just tack on their % O&P so they don't really care either).
Of course, people pay more for inflated cost of medical care and insurance and taxes to subsidize the whole system. The result is that we pay about twice per capita what other developed countries pay for health care but end up with poor quality care (lower health indicators than most other developed countries).
Totally corrupt system.
You'd think that after 50 years they could have figured it out but it just keeps getting more expensive.
Yes, you are correct that skin effect is present at all frequencies and increases at higher frequencies.
This power plant uses DC transmission so it's kind of irrelevant.
Nuclear power seems to have a negative learning curve. Each new nuclear plant seems to cost more than prior plants. This has been observed over decades. Wind and solar, OTOH, have been observed to get cheaper over time with dramatically lower costs each year.
They're using DC, not AC so your faulty reasoning doesn't apply.
Skin effect applies to all electric flow, not just AC. Google it.
A few things you could have answered by RTFA: /. "engineers"). They have been building offshore wind turbines for many years.
- They plan multiple cables to the surrounding countries: Norway, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, UK
- The cables will be be DC which is more efficient
- They have real engineers who know how to design stuff (unlike the
I believe that the USPS is charging Amazon a "market determined rate" which is competitive with UPS and FedEx. Where I live, most Amazon packages are delivered by UPS since I presume it is cheaper. Sometimes it will be FedEx or USPS or some independent guy in a beat up old truck. I assume Amazon has sophisticated shipping cost software which chooses the best rate. If the USPS charged more, Amazon would just switch to UPS, etc.
This is the free market in all of it's raw glory.
Looks like an interesting concept. Too bad you can't buy it.
Southwest doesn't list on Kayak.
When you make a reservation from Kayak, it usually sends you to the airline's own website.
I've found that hotels are reluctant to match the prices of the OTAs. Multiple times I have arrived at a hotel and showed them the OTA price and asked them to match it. This should be a no brainer since they don't have to pay commission but for some reason, they don't want to do it. I end up just booking on the OTA site to get the best price.
One project I've been watching (late as usual) is the Superbook (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andromium/the-superbook-turn-your-smartphone-into-a-laptop-f)
It looks like a small laptop with a screen and keyboard but it has no brains. It uses your smartphone as the brains and more importantly, storage for all you stuff. It has a battery to charge your phone and run the Superbook.
You can feed 10x as many people a vegan diet as an animal diet.
I really don't understand your reasoning. It seems you would rather indulge in meat than prevent the world from becoming uninhabitable for humans.
Actually, meat production does more harm (greenhouse gases, deforestation) than transportation so it's a good candidate for planet destruction.
Actually, my daughter was just telling about eating stone crabs in Florida. Apparently, the only harvest one claw of the crab, throw it back and it grows a new one. (Rinse, repeat)
News flash.
Animals don't make proteins. All protein comes from plants.
Animals are just a very inefficient mechanism of converting plant protein to unhealthy animal protein.
Better to eat lower on the food chain. Fewer toxins, no saturated fat, Better for the planet.
No need to resort to misogynistic statements.
This is "usual" corporate fraud and deception abetted by a "good old boys" network of clueless investors who weren't smart enough (or trusted their "bros" too much) to ask basic questions.
The fact that the CEO was female was part of their hype. They did this.
The fact that they failed was because they had a fundamentally flawed product that they were never able to fix and they engaged in widespread fraud and deception to avoid facing up to their problems. This has no relation to the sex of their CEO. It's common in industry.
There is a fundamental problem with their basic technology in that finger tip blood is not the same as venous blood in many different ways and you can't compensate for that.
Ah HA!
So that's why the lamestream fake news media reported such small numbers of people at the Trump Inauguration!
There were really millions more but the Romanians erased them from the cameras.